OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 20, 2014, 07:12:47 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Moby has his own weblog  (Read 20648 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« on: June 03, 2005, 01:21:12 AM »

http://www.moby.com/journal

This is an entry that I found rather interesting:
"Religion and Homosexuality
Apr 14, 2005 - Washington DC

i've written about it before, but i really don't understand the antipathy that so many christians and so many religious leaders have towards homosexuality. a bunch of episcopalian ministers in connecticut(including one in my old home town of darien...)have broken with their bishop because they find his position on homosexuality to be too liberal.
once again i have to ask, why is the church so worked up about homosexuality?

i ask this because christ, at least in the new testament that i have, never mentioned homosexuality, so we thus don't know what christ might have thought about homosexuality.
why is the church so up in arms about an issue that christ never seemed to have mentioned?
and why does the church so routinely gloss over so many of the issues that christ actually DID talk about?
it just makes no sense to me. wouldn't it make more sense for the church to focus on the issues that christ actually talked about, and thus asked his followers to focus on?

i don't get it:
the church is distraught over homosexuality, which christ never mentioned.

many christians support war and the death penalty.

showing a naked body on television is considered 'immoral' by the church, but showing people being killed and tortured on television is deemed ethically ok by the religious right.

religious leaders who are supposedly protecting 'the sanctity of life' do nothing to keep guns and automatic weapons out of the hands of school-children.

and etc.

like i said, i just don't get it.
-moby"
http://www.moby.com/journal?from=30

Though I disagree with his position on homosexuality, I likewise find America's fascination with violence to be hypocritical.
Anyways, Moby is a cool techno artist and it is interesting to read his journal entries.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2005, 03:14:55 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #1 on: June 03, 2005, 08:22:11 AM »

Matthew,

Quote
i ask this because christ, at least in the new testament that i have, never mentioned homosexuality, so we thus don't know what christ might have thought about homosexuality.

This would be a hard argument to overcome if one were to remained shackeled within not only a Protestant "Bible Only" paradigm, but also a western "popular religion" mentality about just what sin is, and why it is is "sin."  Secular people (if they will indulge the word at all), would say to harm others is "sin" because it hurts them.  Many religious westerners have the idea that certain things are sins, because they hurt God's honour - and more specifically, His honour is so hurt because we didn't fall into line when He "said so."

Interestingly, neither of those ideas is totally without merit.  But accepted in isolation, in ignorance of other considerations, they do create a warped idea of just Who God is, and His relationship to mankind.

Quote
why is the church so up in arms about an issue that christ never seemed to have mentioned?

A) to be specific, Moby should be saying "mentioned in the Bible."  St.John says clearly that the Lord said and did many things not to be found in his Gospel, and I think we can assume the same of the others.  Indeed, common sense alone should tell us this.  Rather, what is in the Scriptures, is there for our edification and instruction, and so that we would believe.

B) Unless Christ is somebody other than God, the He has spoken about this subject in the Pentateuch.  And if the Apostles are his own, and not imposters teaching a foreign doctrine, then at least one of them (St.Paul) has made mention of this and spoken quite clearly that it is a sin.

Quote
and why does the church so routinely gloss over so many of the issues that christ actually DID talk about?
it just makes no sense to me. wouldn't it make more sense for the church to focus on the issues that christ actually talked about, and thus asked his followers to focus on?

This is a good question, though one more applicable to the Protestant world which obviously populates Moby's understanding of who "the Christians" are, and what "the churches" are.  This is not to say there are not plenty of good Protestants who do attend to the weighty things - or that all (or even most) Orthodox Christians are paragons of virtue and have all of their priorities in order - but the trends he's mentioning are characteristic of American Protestantism, and not Orthodox Christianity.

Quote
many christians support war and the death penalty.

Well, Christ didn't talk about the "death penalty" either, did He?

"Oh well no, but He taught about forgiveness and mercy, ergo..."

Ergo, you're infusing your ideas, based on your interpretation of things, into what the Scriptures actually say.  This is a double standard, whether he knows he's indulging it or not.

Btw. my view is that capital punishment is not ideal, but neither is the commission of wickedness which inspires civilizations to resort to it.  And, for what it's worth, the Scriptures do (in the Old Testament) provide a framework for it's implimentation, which says something about the idea that it's utterly and objectively "evil" for a civilization to execute heinous criminals.

I would also submit the same holds true for warfare.

Quote
showing a naked body on television is considered 'immoral' by the church, but showing people being killed and tortured on television is deemed ethically ok by the religious right.

I think if you put it that way, they wouldn't agree with this - I also happen to know that most "Bible believing", church going American types (of some flavour of Protestantism) are against gratuitous violence.  However, he is right that this doesn't seem to concern them as much as the "sex stuff."  Though to be fair to the Protestants, the sinful consequences of viewing impure things are more likely and immediate than exposure to violent imagery (which tends to take time to do it's damage.)

Quote
religious leaders who are supposedly protecting 'the sanctity of life' do nothing to keep guns and automatic weapons out of the hands of school-children.

Well, strictly speaking, hundreds of thousands of kids aren't blowing away each other each year; and when it does happen (relatively rarely), it's a media spectacle.  Hundreds of thousands of children are being murdered by their mothers and so called "doctors" every year and have been so for quite some time - and not only is it a crime which no one pays much attention to, it has plenty of well placed apologists who in fact seek to portray it as a morally neutral matter.  Given this, the one is obviously more of a priority than the other.

Logged
Doubting Thomas
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 874

Anglican (but not Episcopagan)


« Reply #2 on: June 03, 2005, 09:35:08 AM »

RE: Homosexuality

Well, Jesus didn't specifically mention incest, necrophilia, or bestiality. Are we to assume those behaviors are okay too then?

(And I agree with Augustine regarding "sola Scriptura", the OT, and the Apostles.)


RE: Capital punishment

Christ did acknowledge that Pilate had the authority for administering capital punishment given to him by God. Paul mentioned in Romans that the government didn't administer the sword in vain. Not that I'm completely gung-ho pro-death penalty--I just wanted to point out that it's not entirely absent from New Testament Christianity.
Logged

"My Lord and My God!"--Doubting Thomas, AD 33
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #3 on: June 03, 2005, 11:30:12 AM »

Why should I give a crap what "Moby" thinks? Should we ask "Cher" or "Eminem" or the like?

If you're going to love composers and have a bit of hero worship, try Palestrina, Lassus, Byrd, Desprez or Bach. They may have been RC or Lutheran, but that's still more sound than "Moby."
« Last Edit: June 03, 2005, 11:34:47 AM by cizinec » Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #4 on: June 03, 2005, 03:21:56 PM »

Why should I give a crap what "Moby" thinks? 

Moby is well-known for the essays which he composes for the booklets to his albums. They they are not especially original, it is still interesting that he thinks more than most other popular music stars.

Well, Christ didn't talk about the "death penalty" either, did He?

As I mentioned before, I do not agree with Moby's stance with homosexuality. However, I have to disagree with you on this:
Matthew 5
38
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'
39
But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.

He without sin among you, cast the first stone - John 8:7
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
choirfiend
ManIsChristian=iRnotgrEek.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 903

Rachael weeping for her children, for they are not


« Reply #5 on: June 03, 2005, 03:27:32 PM »



Moby is well-known for the essays which he composes for the booklets to his albums. They they are not especially original, it is still interesting that he thinks more than most other popular music stars.

Just because he writes things doesn't mean he thinks more than "most other popular music stars." Accepting anything the media gives you and using it to assume you know anything about the stars who are completely removed from your experience is madness.
Logged

Qui cantat, bis orat
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #6 on: June 03, 2005, 03:49:13 PM »

Some of the world's most evil people had speech like honey.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Nacho
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #7 on: June 03, 2005, 04:38:30 PM »

I have a few Moby albums and have read his rants on the inside cover and have to wonder if he's either insane or doing it all for show. He always seems to exagerate just about every cause he writes about as if the end of the world is right around the corner. He's says he's a christian but I have to wonder sometimes with some of the positions he takes. 
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #8 on: June 03, 2005, 06:17:37 PM »



Just because he writes things doesn't mean he thinks more than "most other popular music stars." Accepting anything the media gives you and using it to assume you know anything about the stars who are completely removed from your experience is madness.

Your negative twisting of anything I say has devolved into a self-parody. Just compare Moby with Eminem, Britney Spears or Fred Durst. 

He's says he's a christian but I have to wonder sometimes with some of the positions he takes.

"In my own strange way, I'm a Christian, in that I really love Christ, and I think that the wisdom of Christ is the highest, strongest wisdom I've ever encountered, and I think that his description of the human condition is about the best description or understanding of the human condition I've ever encountered. And although I try and live my life according to the teachings of Christ, a lot of times I fall short. I wouldn't necessarily consider myself a Christian in the conventional sense of the word, where I go to chuch or believe in cultural Christianity, but I really do love Christ and recognize him in whatever capacity as I can understand it as God. One of my problems with the church and conventional Christianity is it seems like their focus doesn't have much to do with the teachings of Christ, but rather with their own social agenda. So that's why I tend to be sort of outspoken about how much I dislike conventional cultural Christianity." -Moby, from the Animal Rights Interview CD
http://www.moby.org/info/faith.html


Some of the world's most evil people had speech like honey.

That is true but as I said before, his essays are not especially great. The good thing is that he does think more than the average pop star.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Nacho
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #9 on: June 03, 2005, 06:42:04 PM »

Quote
"In my own strange way, I'm a Christian, in that I really love Christ, and I think that the wisdom of Christ is the highest, strongest wisdom I've ever encountered, and I think that his description of the human condition is about the best description or understanding of the human condition I've ever encountered. And although I try and live my life according to the teachings of Christ, a lot of times I fall short. I wouldn't necessarily consider myself a Christian in the conventional sense of the word, where I go to chuch or believe in cultural Christianity, but I really do love Christ and recognize him in whatever capacity as I can understand it as God. One of my problems with the church and conventional Christianity is it seems like their focus doesn't have much to do with the teachings of Christ, but rather with their own social agenda. So that's why I tend to be sort of outspoken about how much I dislike conventional cultural Christianity." -Moby, from the Animal Rights Interview CD
http://www.moby.org/info/faith.html

I would like to ask Moby why it's strange being a Christian? It sounds like he has some emotional type issues he needs to work through because he doesn't sound so sure of himself or where he stands. He's says in the qoute above that the problem he has with conventional Christianity is that they would rather promote a social agenda rather than the teachings of Christ, but isn't Moby doing the exact same thing he is accusing others with the pomotion of his social agenda? Afterall, it's just his opinion, so how does he know who's right? It's funny listening to these people that have problems with authority spew the same line over and over again that it's always organized religions fault, but of course they have all the answers.... Roll Eyes
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Elisha
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 4,347


« Reply #10 on: June 03, 2005, 06:49:04 PM »


That is true but as I said before, his essays are not especially great. The good thing is that he expresses his views more than the average pop star.

Here, I fixed your quote for you.

That statement from the Animal Rights CD, while probably one of his best, is still rather lacking. Of course, he doesn't realize that the "social agenda" he refers to is necessary to prevent the FURTHER deterioration of morality in society. He doesn't realize that he himself is not condemned for "being gay" (I'm not 100% sure, but I think he is), but for overtly "actiing" out gayness (to repeat the old adage, "Hate the sin, not the sinner.")
Logged
choirfiend
ManIsChristian=iRnotgrEek.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 903

Rachael weeping for her children, for they are not


« Reply #11 on: June 03, 2005, 09:22:24 PM »



Your negative twisting of anything I say has devolved into a self-parody. Just compare Moby with Eminem, Britney Spears or Fred Durst.

I'm just speaking my mind. I think it's too easy to villify and pronounce judgment upon stars because we become involved in the most intimate details of their lives--as reported by media. And just because one puts essays in their cd liners doesn't mean others (even Britany Spears, Eminem, or Fred Durst) are not intelligent, or the REAL issue, aren't people in whom we are called to see the image of Christ. I'm about keeping it positive, or if it's negative, I try to keep my mind off it.
Logged

Qui cantat, bis orat
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #12 on: June 04, 2005, 02:07:44 AM »

I would like to ask Moby why it's strange being a Christian?

I believe what he means is that it is strange to label himself as a Christian given that he disagrees with many Christians on various issues. He is against fundamentalism of any kind and therefore, he wouldn't push his own opinions as an alternative to rigid social conservatism.

He doesn't realize that he himself is not condemned for "being gay" (I'm not 100% sure, but I think he is), but for overtly "actiing" out gayness (to repeat the old adage, "Hate the sin, not the sinner.")

Moby is not gay himself but he does tolerate gay people.
"MOBY claims the reason he was attacked in BOSTON was because the men thought he was gay.

The dance star was playing a show at the Boston Paradise Club in the US (December 11), as part of his ongoing tour in support of his new album '18'. On leaving the show he was attacked by three men, and beaten to the ground.

Now, the star has said he thinks his alleged assailants picked on him because they thought he was gay - even though he isn't.

"I'm kind of a simpleton, but could someone please explain homophobia to me?" he wrote on www.moby.com. "Apparently when I was attacked in Boston it was a 'gay bashing' (which is kind of ironic seeing as I'm straight). What in the world do people find so offensive about homosexuality? What about homosexuality is so upsetting to so many people? Prejudicial hate and violence are always despicable and offensive, it's as simple as that."
http://www.nme.com/news/103887.htm

...aren't people in whom we are called to see the image of Christ.

When discussing celebrities, we've got to be able to have a sense of humor. Granted, all human beings are made in the image of God. However, that doesn't mean that Fred Durst and Eminem do not deserve a little busting of the chops now and then.
Furthermore, it is not hard to figure out that Moby does think more than the average pop star. Does that make Britney Spears an inferior human being? No, not at all. Would I be able to have an intellectually stimulating conversation with her? I am not sure about that, but I am almost certain that I could have one with Moby.
And I am sorry if I have been too blunt but something's gotta give. I mean, if I said that Michael Savage is a right-wing extremist, I could imagine that you'd reply that he is a communist.

Anyways, everyone should hear this song...

http://www.lepota.co.yu/muzika/Moby%20-%20Natural%20Blues.mp3
Natural Blues
from the album Play

oh lordy, trouble so hard
oh lordy, trouble so hard,
don't nobody know my troubles but God
don't nobody know my troubles but God

went down the hill, the other day
my soul got happy and stayed all day

oh lordy...

went in the room, didn't stay long,
looked on the bed and brother was dead

oh lordy...

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.




Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
choirfiend
ManIsChristian=iRnotgrEek.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 903

Rachael weeping for her children, for they are not


« Reply #13 on: June 04, 2005, 02:31:23 AM »

Yeah, its a good song. One that he didnt write, or anything, but took a very old recording andn set a beat to it. One very good thing he's done is to make sure the FAMILY of the man who recorded that song got royalties, even though the record company had no reason to seek them out and no one would have known differently.
Logged

Qui cantat, bis orat
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #14 on: June 04, 2005, 02:34:06 AM »

One that he didnt write, or anything, but took a very old recording andn set a beat to it.

The sampling of classic material is a staple of electronic music. It is good that he paid royalties.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
choirfiend
ManIsChristian=iRnotgrEek.
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 903

Rachael weeping for her children, for they are not


« Reply #15 on: June 04, 2005, 02:54:45 AM »

Well aware of that, but thanks. But when you use the text in a thread discussing Moby's religion and morality and general worth as a person, you have to classify that he didnt write or perform the text.
Logged

Qui cantat, bis orat
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #16 on: June 04, 2005, 03:20:28 AM »

One of the primary reasons why I enjoy the song is because it is great for introspection.
« Last Edit: June 04, 2005, 03:21:37 AM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #17 on: June 06, 2005, 12:25:47 PM »

Matthew,

Quote
As I mentioned before, I do not agree with Moby's stance with homosexuality. However, I have to disagree with you on this:
Matthew 5
38
"You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.'
39
But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on (your) right cheek, turn the other one to him as well.

He without sin among you, cast the first stone - John 8:7

You're confusing the responsibilities of those who govern with our own personal struggle.  It's a common mistake, but a very dangerous one.  The life of St.Vladimir is very instructive in this regard.  When he first became a Christian, he felt a tension between being a sincere believer, and administering his duties as a ruler.  Thus, for a brief time, bandits started going out of control, because the Prince's softened heart was unable to deal with them decisively.  It was at this point, that the clergy came to him and admonished him of his duties in this regard (which are different from individuals), citing St.Paul's Epistle to the Romans...

1 Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God.
2 Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment.
3 For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval,
4 for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience.
6 For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing. (Romans 13:1-6)

Besides, if your (mis)application of Christian charity to government were to be done consistantly, the rulers would have no ability whatsoever to suppress and punish crime - since not only would executions be forbidden, but any form of punishment.

Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #18 on: June 06, 2005, 02:37:21 PM »

I believe there is a difference between justice and vengence. Capital punishment should not be taken lightly and should only be administered to the worst of offenders in the most humane way possible.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Lemko Rusyn
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Православно-католицька віра нашых вітців
Jurisdiction: Русиньска ґрекокатолицька церьков свого права
Posts: 118


Пресвятая Богородице Повчанская, спаси нас!


WWW
« Reply #19 on: June 06, 2005, 03:12:55 PM »

-Ñ-Ç-+-ü-é-+-ü -¦-+-ü-¦-Ç-¦-ü!

I wonder if in Moby's world, "Take, eat, this is My Body..." is "cultural Christianity"...
Logged
idontlikenames
I'm gonna be the next Matthew777 (whatever that means)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 230

You forgot my briefcase


« Reply #20 on: June 08, 2005, 07:09:31 PM »

ummmmm....what is wrong with homosexuality?  try reading Romans and Corinthians, Moby, that's part of the Bible too, you know,....you know that one book that Christians espouse, which you claim to be a part of.  And how is keeping guns "out of the hands of children and adolescents" beneficial to society, when what you're really doing is keeping gun trade still open in the black market while denying it to people who can use them responsibley.....makes no sense.
Logged

laa ilaah illa al-Maal wa Rothschild howa nabeehi
Nacho
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #21 on: June 08, 2005, 07:27:03 PM »

Quote
ummmmm....what is wrong with homosexuality?  try reading Romans and Corinthians, Moby, that's part of the Bible too, you know,....you know that one book that Christians espouse, which you claim to be a part of.  And how is keeping guns "out of the hands of children and adolescents" beneficial to society, when what you're really doing is keeping gun trade still open in the black market while denying it to people who can use them responsibley.....makes no sense.

Hehe... Grin He would say something like many parts of the bible *aren't* really the real teachings of Christ because it were the monks in the early centuries who transcribed all the transcripts for the bible and that they added or changed things secretly to fit their ultra - conservative traditional beleifs... Roll Eyes He would then go on and spew some nonsense about these great scholars like those in the jesus seminar and other bastions of diversity who have really discovered the 'real' teachings of Jesus. The whole gun thing is above me also with the hysterics of these people. Children who are killed by child abuse from their parents make up like 1000%  more cases than those who happened to be killed by guns. The activist have too much time on their hands these days. Moby should just shut up and sing and leave the rest for the experts to figure out.... Grin   
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Bono Vox
The Orthodox Bagpiper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #22 on: June 10, 2005, 10:36:24 PM »

Nacho,

Cool confederate flag! Do you think Moby would like it?Huh??

Bagpiper
Logged

Troparion - Tone 1:
O Sebastian, spurning the assemblies of the wicked,You gathered the wise martyrs Who with you cast down the enemy; And standing worthily before the throne of God, You gladden those who cry to you:Glory to him who has strengthened you! Glory to him who has granted you a crown!
Bono Vox
The Orthodox Bagpiper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #23 on: June 10, 2005, 10:37:34 PM »

PS-

Nacho, I'm amazed that you have 500 more posts than I do!

Bagpiper
Logged

Troparion - Tone 1:
O Sebastian, spurning the assemblies of the wicked,You gathered the wise martyrs Who with you cast down the enemy; And standing worthily before the throne of God, You gladden those who cry to you:Glory to him who has strengthened you! Glory to him who has granted you a crown!
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 11, 2005, 12:20:46 AM »

The Confederate flag just so happens to be my favorite symbol of ignorance, racism, and slavery.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Bono Vox
The Orthodox Bagpiper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #25 on: June 11, 2005, 01:16:37 AM »

Quote
The Confederate flag just so happens to be my favorite symbol of ignorance, racism, and slavery



"The Confederate Battle Flag—the "Southern Cross"
Sept. 1861-April 1865

The best-known of all Confederate flags—the battle flag—is often erroneously confused with the national flag of the Confederacy. The battle flag features the cross of St. Andrew (the apostle was martyred by being crucified on an X-shaped cross), and is commonly called the "Southern Cross." A large degree of the Southern population was of Scottish and Scotch-Irish ancestry, and thus familiar with St. Andrew, the patron saint of Scotland. The stars represented the eleven states actually in the Confederacy, plus Kentucky and Missouri. This flag is the flap popularly associated with Robert E. Lee, and is the flag under which he fought.
   

The Army of Northern Virginia was the first to design a flag with the cross of St. Andrew, and Gen. P. G. T. Beauregard proposed adopting a version of it as the standard battle flag of the Confederate army. The Harper's Weekly Image above shows Beauregard's Arkansas troops serving under the "Stars and Bars" flag in 1861.  The Army of Northern Virginia can be seen serving under the "Southern Cross" in 1862. One of its virtues was that, unlike the Stars and Bars, the Southern Cross was next to impossible to confuse with the Stars and Stripes in battle. The Confederate battle flag eventually developed wide acceptance 0throughout the Confederacy, but it was by no means the only battle flag.

   

It should also be pointed out that there was no uniform Southern Cross flag—throughout the South slightly different versions of the original design were used by different regiments. Even their shape varied: some were square, the traditional shape of battle flags; others were rectangular. Because the South did not have the industrial resources of the North, the creation of flags was handled by a variety of cottage industries throughout the Confederacy, which contributed to the variations."

Perhaps this will shed a little light on the Confederate flag.

It is unfortunate that some hate groups have tried to hijack the confederate flag for themselvs; these groups are a disgrace and don't represent our proud southern heritage.

The confederate flag is the cross of St. Andrew, like the Scottish flag. Most people don't know this because most people haven't truly studied the history of the civil war from an unbiased perspective (the winner is the one who wrights the history). Unfortunatley, most people have bought into the yankee myth of history; however, I think that the tide has been turning (especially with movies like "God's and Generals" which gives a fair portrayal of both sides.

Anyway, my point is that it's heritage, not hate.

Bagpiper


Logged

Troparion - Tone 1:
O Sebastian, spurning the assemblies of the wicked,You gathered the wise martyrs Who with you cast down the enemy; And standing worthily before the throne of God, You gladden those who cry to you:Glory to him who has strengthened you! Glory to him who has granted you a crown!
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #26 on: June 11, 2005, 09:16:55 PM »

Unfortunatley, most people have bought into the yankee myth of history

What yankee myth of history? Does this "myth" include the injustice of slavery and the defiance of the Confederacy?

I think that the tide has been turning (especially with movies like "God's and Generals" which gives a fair portrayal of both sides.

Doesn't that movie portray the Confederate army as equally honorable to the North?
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Bono Vox
The Orthodox Bagpiper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #27 on: June 11, 2005, 10:05:05 PM »

Quote
What yankee myth of history? Does this "myth" include the injustice of slavery and the defiance of the Confederacy?


First of all, the civil war was not about slavery. If slavery was the primary issue of the civil war, then why is it that almost all of the soldiers, as well as most of the people in the south didn't own slaves?

The civil war was largely in part, amongst other things, the direction of government. The north believed in a centralized form of government and the south believed in a more confederate (decentralized) form of government. There was an inumeral amount of atrocities and injustices done to the south by the union forces before, during and after the war.

For instance, just take a look at the state of Missouri where I live. Have you ever studied the border wars that we had here between the union kansas jayhawker regimines and us? How the union jayhawkers came in and killed thousands of innocent people and burned down peoples properties and raped women relentlessly? Oh, but they were honorable because they didn't believe in slavery, I forgot.

Quote
Doesn't that movie portray the Confederate army as equally honorable to the North?

Yes, it portrays the reality of the situation. The confederate army, quite frankly, was more honorable than the northern agressors. If I was a POW in the war of northern agression, then I would pray to God that I be taken captive by the confederates rather than by the union. My chances of survival would be much higher.

The movie also accuratley portrays the fact that the north was predominantly secular humanists and the south was a much more religious people.

As far as slavery goes, most southerners believed in gradual emancipation. Most southerners didn't even own slaves. It was the war of northern aggression, and the reconstruction period that unfortunatly led to bad race relations.

God bless Dixieland!!

Bagpiper

« Last Edit: June 11, 2005, 10:06:07 PM by Orthodox Bagpiper » Logged

Troparion - Tone 1:
O Sebastian, spurning the assemblies of the wicked,You gathered the wise martyrs Who with you cast down the enemy; And standing worthily before the throne of God, You gladden those who cry to you:Glory to him who has strengthened you! Glory to him who has granted you a crown!
Thomas
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 2,711



« Reply #28 on: June 11, 2005, 10:51:12 PM »

Christ isÂÂ  Risen!

Matthew,ÂÂ  The Scottish Bagpiper is correct. The reason for the Civil War in the United States was about the direction the government was taking and the perception in the southern states that the more populous and industrial northern states were was trying to financially and politically subjugate the southern states. The point of slavery was an issueÂÂ  became an issue in about 1864 for those fighting for the union---prior to that time the focus was upon the preservation of the Union. It became a focus based upon the political ambitions of theÂÂ  "Radical Republicans" portion of Congress and an alliance the made with the Abolitionist wing of the party to gain control of theÂÂ  Congress to pursue their agenda.ÂÂ  President Lincoln was guided to believe thatÂÂ  the Freedom of the slaves in the states in rebellion would shorten the war [it should be noted that Lincoln did not free the slaves in the states that remained in the Union andÂÂ  actually spoke to the "free men of Color" about resettlingÂÂ  freed slaves outside of the United States in Africa (Liberia) or a colony in South America that was proposed---the "freemen of color" rejected this stating that they too were AmericansÂÂ  and had been here for Generations.] As the Scottish Bagpiper noted, most southern soldiers indeed 90% according to most studies, were non-slave holders (partially because the slaveholders were exempt from the military service draft, and as with the north, wealthy people paid people to serve for them if they were drafted, but had no slaves)

It is important that we view history not in the eyes of revisionist and modernists who seek to flavor history with their own agendas; It is important to read the actual journals of those who were living in the time period to understand the hows and whys of their actions. The journals of both the Northern and the Southern soldiersÂÂ  and the letters of correspondence from them to their families are quite eloquent and show why they believed they were fighting and why both were honorable men.ÂÂ  As one who has men on both sides of the war, the reading of their journals and letters has truly defined the reasons and sadness behind that war when brother truly fought brother over strongly held political beliefs and interpretations of the other 's actions.

Matthew, you may also wish to read some of the "Freedmens" journals and letters about how frustrated they were that the North did not allow them to fightÂÂ  anddenied them their rights and liberty.ÂÂ  They speak openly about the need to pressure northern leaders to make the focus of the war slavery which for them was the evil they wished destroyed.ÂÂ  You may find the three views quite different from each other and yet fascinating.ÂÂ  It will give you an entire different respect for them all.

Orthodox Christians should well be aware of the dangers of Revisionist history which has so been used so well by western society to denigrate andÂÂ  minimize the infuence of eastern Christianity upon the Church and the world. It is historians from this same mileau who seek to revise the story of the Civil War to meet today's political agendas, rather than present the three very differing views and reasons for the American Civil War to seek better understanding and rapproachment among their descendents.

In Christ,
Thomas
« Last Edit: June 11, 2005, 11:47:55 PM by Thomas » Logged

Your brother in Christ ,
Thomas
Augustine
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 565

pray for me, please


WWW
« Reply #29 on: June 11, 2005, 11:53:07 PM »

Thanks to the gentlemen who posted on the issue of the American South, and it's denegration in popular "histories."ÂÂ  The reality (as is almost always the case) is much more complicated than what the "winners" put in all of the school text books.

The whole period has of course been coloured not only by the ambitions of the winners, but also by their ideological descendents (and worse!) who see something in the "old south" which bothers them tremendously - namely, these folks tended to be more "conventionally" religious than their northern neighbours, and were intuitively opposed to the over-centralization of their government; in short, they espoused principles which to this day "yankees" have been demonizing or portraying as the lot of dangerous weirdos.

I find the topic very interesting, even though my only connection to the United States is that I'm married to an American (though still living in Canada.)

« Last Edit: June 11, 2005, 11:54:49 PM by Augustine » Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #30 on: June 12, 2005, 01:42:47 AM »

First of all, the civil war was not about slavery.

I understand that there were several economic and political reasons for the war but ending slavery was one of the reasons also. What about Lincoln?

The confederate army, quite frankly, was more honorable than the northern agressors.

In my perspective, that is like saying that the Nazis were more honorable than the Allies. I know that may sound a little extreme but that is how I feel.
« Last Edit: June 12, 2005, 01:43:52 AM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Bono Vox
The Orthodox Bagpiper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #31 on: June 12, 2005, 12:46:40 PM »

Quote
I understand that there were several economic and political reasons for the war but ending slavery was one of the reasons also. What about Lincoln?

"Abraham  Lincoln
Emancipator  or  Racist ?
   
 
   
1996
This was written and published in a book I co-authored with my son entitled "Flag Tag Gate" which dealt with the State of Maryland's illegal revocation of the organizational logo license plates of the Sons of Confederate Veterans.
One of the greatest misconceptions we have discovered when hearing people talk about the "Civil War" is their statements about Mr. Lincoln. Most persons seem to believe that Lincoln was the pioneer of the "Civil Rights" and "Human Rights" movements of today. We, too, were taught that in school. It wasn't until we really began studying the War Between The States and reading detailed biographies that we discovered the true Mr. Lincoln. Please excuse us for not referring to him as President Lincoln. Our hearts were with the South; therefore, Jefferson Davis was our President. "Honest Abe" was just Mr. Lincoln.
It must be remembered that Lincoln sought to preserve the Union through unconstitutional measures. The blacks and liberals have placed Mr. Lincoln high on a pedestal, considering him to be one of "our" greatest Presidents and greatest Americans. He is also referred to as "The Great Emancipator." However, history, not fable, shows him to be far less. Lincoln was terribly ruthless in suppressing anti-war or Confederate sentiment in the North and in the border states. "Honest Abe" was anything but honest. Like our lawyer politician opponents of today he must have either skipped many law classes or have been asleep. For it was in our own state of Maryland that Lincoln considered arresting the entire membership of the legislature. He did order the arrest of many leading citizens of Maryland after suspending the writ of habeas corpus, a basic human right dating back to the Magna Carta.
Let's take a look at some of Mr. Lincoln's views and quotations: "I am not in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office." (September 15, 1858, - campaign speech) "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery." (March 4, 1861, - First Inaugural Address) "I am a little uneasy about the abolishment of slavery in this District of Columbia." ( March 24, 1862, - letter to Horace Greeley) "If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it." (August 22, 1862, - letter to Horace Greeley, New York Tribune editor)
From the Lincoln Douglas Debates of 1858, "I will say, then, that I am not, nor have ever been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not nor ever been in favor of making voters of the free Negroes, or jurors, or qualifying them to hold office, or having them to marry with white people. I will say in addition, that there is a physical difference between the white and black races, which, I suppose, will forever forbid the two races living together upon terms of social and political equality, and inasmuch as they cannot so live, that while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior, that I as much as any other white man am in favor of the superior position being assigned to the white man."
As far as Lincoln's views of racial equality is must be remembered that in the famous debates with Stephen Douglas, Lincoln advocated deporting blacks to Africa. As for the great Northern supporters it must be remembered that many of the Northern states had laws that forbade the immigration of free blacks. In fact, it can be argued that many Northerners were not as much opposed to slavery, then to the actual slaves themselves. Several exclusion laws were passed in the North forbidding free blacks from coming into various states. New Jersey, Oregon, Massachusetts, Indiana, and Illinois (do you know where this is, Mr. Lincoln?) all passed various laws to this effect.
Alabama State Sen. Charles Davidson remarked in a speech of May 31, 1996, before the Alabama State Legislature: "Abraham Lincoln, himself, stated the opinion of the Northern people at a meeting with a group of black leaders during the war, when Lincoln said to them 'there is an unwillingness on the part of our people (Northern whites) to live with you free colored people. Whether this is right or wrong, I am not prepared to discuss, but a fact with which we must deal. Therefore, I think it best for us to separate'. Whereupon, Abraham Lincoln and the United States Congress purchased land, passed laws and started shipping free Northern blacks out of the United States down to poverty stricken Haiti. Lincoln put together several such schemes to remove free blacks from the United States, to send some back to Africa and some to Central and South America. At the end of the war, a few weeks before Lincoln was killed, Union Gen. Benjamin Butler asked Lincoln what was he going to do with all the recently freed Southern blacks? Lincoln replied, "I think we should deport them all." Meanwhile, down South, Confederate States President, Jefferson Davis and his wife Varina are adopting an eight year old, free black orphaned boy, named Jim Limber. Also, in St. Louis, when General John Fremont freed slaves of 'disloyal' Missouri Confederates, an angry Lincoln fired him.
Not wanting to be accused of taking some of Mr. Lincoln's quotes out of context we are enclosing his entire First and Second Inaugural Addresses and have done the same with his Emancipation Proclamation in the next section. We have highlighted some areas that deserve special attention.
Lincoln's First Inaugural Address
March 4, 1861
Fellow citizens of the United States: in compliance with a custom as old as the government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take, in your presence, the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of his office."
I do not consider it necessary, at present, for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety, or excitement.
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you.
I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And, more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
"Resolved: that the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."
I now reiterate these sentiments; and, in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause--as cheerfully to one section as to another.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution - to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up", their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority; but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should any one in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to HOW it shall be kept?
Again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not, in any case, surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizen of each State shall be entitled to all privileged and immunities of citizens in the several States?"
I take the official oath today with no mental reservations, and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules. And while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate any of them, trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unConstitutional.
It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our national Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have, in succession, administered the executive branch of the government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief Constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.
I hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever--it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And, finally, in 1787 one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "TO FORM A MORE PERFECT UNION."
But if the destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that Resolves and Ordinances to that effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. I therefore consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States.
Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it so far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it WILL Constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States, in any interior locality, shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable withal, that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.
The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible, the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised according to circumstances actually existing, and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.
That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak? Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from--will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?
All profess to be content in the Union if all Constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the Constitution, has been denied? I think not. Happily the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written Constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution--certainly would if such a right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain, express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.
From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. There is no other alternative; for continuing the government is acquiescence on one side or the other.
If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.
Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new Union, as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession?
Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.
I do not forget the position, assumed by some, that Constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding, in any case, upon the parties to a suit, as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.
One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave-trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly cured; and it would be worse in both cases AFTER the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave-trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived, without restriction, in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.
Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, an no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions as to terms of intercourse are again upon you.
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their Constitutional right of amending it, or their Revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution - which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied Constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
The chief magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have conferred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the states. The people themselves can do this also if they choose; but the executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor.
Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail, by the judgment of this great tribunal, the American people.
By the frame of the government under which we live, this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief; and have, with equal wisdom, provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years.
My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied, still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on him who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.
In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you.
You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
I am loathe to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.
Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address
March 4, 1865
Fellow countrymen: At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself; and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it - all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war - seeking to dissolve the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it perish. And the war came.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.
Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes his aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered--that of neither has been answered fully.
The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses! for it must needs be that offenses come; but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through his appointed time, he now wills to remove, and that he gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn by the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, "The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, and with all nations.
Radio talk shows were constantly buzzing with comments about the Emancipation Proclamation. It is amazing how many persons had no idea that it was basically a worthless piece of paper with no binding authority. Callers, black and white, were not knowledgeable as to the underlying motives of the Proclamation. Rather than cite small parts of it for dissection, we have included it in its entirety, with our comments at the end.
The Emancipation Proclamation
By the President of the United States of America:
A PROCLAMATION
Whereas on the 22nd day of September, A.D. 1862, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:
"That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thence forward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
"That the executive will on the 1st day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State or the people thereof shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such States shall have participated shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State and the people thereof are not then in rebellion against the United States."
Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-In-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days from the first day above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Palquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terrebone, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, (including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkeley, Accomac, Northhampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and which excepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States and parts of States are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.
And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all case when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.
And I further declare and make known that such persons of suitable condition will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.
And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God.
A review of the Emancipation Proclamation shows that U.S. President Abraham Lincoln freed all slaves residing in territory in rebellion against the federal government. This Emancipation Proclamation actually freed few people. It did not apply to slaves in border states fighting on the Union side. It did not affect slaves in southern areas already under Union control. It certainly did not free the slaves in the Confederate States of America because this was in a foreign nation that Lincoln had no authority over. As James Ronald Kennedy and Walter Donald Kennedy stated in their The South Was Right! , "A reading of the proclamation will demonstrate that Lincoln declared free those slaves he had no power to free, and he left in bondage those that he could have set free! (italics added) So much for the myth of Lincoln as the great emancipator." This would be like President Clinton giving a pardon to all persons jailed in Mexico.
The purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was threefold. The first purpose was to try and stir a slave uprising in the Confederate States of America. The second purpose was to shift the cause of the War Between The States from a war about "States Rights" to a war about slavery in the eyes of Americans and the rest of the World. The third purpose was to keep other countries, namely Great Britain and France, from entering the war on the side of the Confederacy. Once the World had the opinion that the war was about slavery, no country would come to the aid of the Confederate States of America. Lincoln succeeded in this task.
It may be argued that Lincoln's viewed the war only in terms of preserving the Union. As his remarks have shown, he was basically a White Supremist who had no interest in equality of the races or of freeing the slaves. However as a movement for abolition mounted in Congress and the country, he became more sympathetic to the idea. The Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the United States. It wasn't until December 18, 1865, with the passage of the 13th Amendment to the Constitution, that slavery ended.
It could be argued that Sen. Larry Young of today, has taken a page out of Lincoln's book, in trying to switch the focus of the issues at hand. The legal situation with the organizational logo tags and the Sons of Confederate Veterans vs. The State of Maryland, was clearly a First Amendment issue. Slavery, and the Confederate Battle Flag had absolutely nothing to do with legal arguments in the case. However, if Sen. Larry Young could bring the slavery issue into the current day battle, he would be an instant winner. Unlike the 1860's, no one accepts the institution of slavery in the 1990's. Therefore, by making slavery an issue in the logo tags battle, and screaming righteous indignation, Sen. Larry Young is everybody's best buddy - because no one today believes in slavery! Well, it worked to a point. It got the minorities, hot heads, and liberals on his side and against the Sons of Confederate Veterans by turning the focus away from the real issue - just like Lincoln did in the 1860's. However, Judge Smalkin decided the case on the laws of the land, not emotions, and decided in favor of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Nice try, Larry.
Obviously the War Between The States and Mr. Lincoln are closely tied with the slavery issue and the Emancipation Proclamation. Let's stop for a moment and consider the following: If the Union (Northerners) were so concerned about freeing the slaves in the South, how do you balance that theory against the fact that the Union was doing its best to completely destroy the entire American Indian race in the West. Their genocidal treatment of the Native Americans would have drawn a smile on Adolf Hitler's face. Doesn't seem like "equal rights" and "equality" were in their vocabulary? Or how about the fact that the U.S. Congress offered to pass a constitutional amendment for the South, guaranteeing permanent slavery forever in the slave States, if the Southern states that seceded would return to the Union? The South refused the offer.
If slavery was the primary reason for the war, as since promoted by the North, it is no question but that the South would have quickly returned. The fact that they refused the offer shows there was much more involved. How could the war be fought over slavery when both sides owned slaves? Even in his Inaugural Address of March 4, 1861, Lincoln said he had "no purpose, directly or indirectly to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." He only made it an issue when the Confederacy started winning. Gen. U.S. Grant had a personal slave and Lincoln's wife's family owned many. Gen. Grant remarked that if he "thought this war was to abolish slavery, I would resign my commission, and offer my sword to the other side."
R. Miles of Bel Air, Maryland, in an editorial stated, "Emancipation? President Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation did not free a single slave. Issued at a time when the Confederacy seemed to be winning the war, Lincoln hoped to transform a disagreement over secession into a crusade against slavery, thus preventing Great Britain from intervening on the side of the South. The proclamation allowed slavery to continue in the North as well as in Tennessee and large parts of Louisiana and Virginia. It applied to Confederate held slaves, which Lincoln had no authority over, but not to slaves under Federal control."
As stated earlier, many persons feel the primary purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was to try and start a slave uprising in the South, with the secondary motive of shifting the "reason" of the war from a States Rights issue to a "Slavery" issue, thereby keeping other countries (namely Great Britain and France) from coming to the aid of the Confederates. The Emancipation Proclamation revealed Lincoln's deceit for blacks as it freed those slaves held "within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States."
The bottom line, the absolute bottom line regarding the Emancipation Proclamation, was that Mr. Lincoln kept those slaves in bondage that he could have freed.
It should be remembered that slaves in Washington, D.C. were not freed until April 1862. Slavery continued throughout the entire war in five Union held states: Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri. While the Confederate Constitution did not outlaw slavery it had a provision which prohibited the African slave trade outright (unlike the U.S. Constitution). Also remember that when the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter, there were eight union slave states and only seven Confederate slave states.
Let's look a little more closely at the word "slave." Technically, the word "slave" is being inappropriately used, as pointed out by Alabama State Sen. Charles Davidson, who stated that "the word 'Slave' is Greek for the word 'Slav' and rightly applies only to white European slaves or slavs from the countries of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Slavonia, Russia, Poland, Hungary and others. The Slavonic tribes are the root of all European white people. For a thousand years, so many millions of these white European Slavs were captured and sold as servants, that the word 'Slavs' or 'Slaves' became universally used for the word 'servant' and was only later applied to black servants. Every white person in American has ancestors who were slaves including the Scots, British, French, and Germans. It the early colonies of America whites were regularly sold as permanent slaves. If it were justifiable, whites would be much more justified in having 'a chip on their shoulder' or a 'pity party' because more of their white ancestors were slaves and for a longer period of time. Almost all blacks in the U.S. were under slavery for less than 100 years and only 5% of all black slaves shipped by black masters out of Africa ever came to the United States, because most black slaves were shipped to South America or the West Indies."
Chris Millrons, of Finksburg, Maryland, in an editorial in the Carroll County Times of January 19, 1997, states the "Majority of American slave traders were from the North. The first slave ship outfitter here was built in Salem, Massachusetts, in 1637. Massachusetts also legalized the enslavement and export for slave of American Indians. Virginia made this illegal. In 1778, Virginia, became the first state to prohibit the importation of slaves. Ninety four percent of all African slaves brought to the western hemisphere were sold to slave holders in the Caribbean and South America, mainly by Northern traders."
Here are a few other interesting facts regarding slavery and the War Between The States. General Robert E. Lee encouraged the Confederate States of America to free slaves and allow them to join the army. His suggestion came to fruition and the Confederate States of America did recruit and arm black regiments. General Robert E. Lee freed his family slaves before the war; however, in contrast, Union General U. S. Grant kept his wife's slaves well into the war. When questioned as to why he didn't free the slaves, Grant replied, "Good help is so hard to come by these days."
Many free blacks owned slaves themselves. In 1861 Charleston, for example, a free colored planter named William Ellison owned 70 slaves. Even in 1830 New York City, three decades before the war, eight black planters owned 17 slaves.
Alabama State Sen. Charles Davidson made some very interesting comments regarding slavery and the War Between The States in his speech before the Alabama State Senate, stating, "There were masters who violated the law and mistreated their servants, like Union General William T. Sherman, who owned a number of slaves before the war and who was constantly in court facing charges for abusing his slaves. The incidence of abuse, rape, broken homes and murder are 100 times greater today, in the housing projects than they ever were on the slave plantations in the old South."
"Even Blacks and Indians owned slaves in the old South, while 7% of Southern whites owned slaves, 2% of free blacks in the South owned slaves. In 1860, the U.S. Census reported that around 10,000 free blacks owned some 60,000 black slaves. It was a black slave master named Anthony Johnson, who sued and won his case in a Virginia Court in 1653 that changed temporary servitude to lifetime servitude."
Here is some interesting information regarding Maryland and slavery. Contrary to popular modern-day beliefs, not all blacks were slaves at the time of the War Between The States. In Maryland, roughly half of the black population, by 1860, were already free. As Jean H. Baker points out in The Politics of Continuity, Maryland Political Parties from 1858 to 1870, published by The Johns Hopkins University in 1973, was that by 1860, there were 171,131 blacks in Maryland, 87,189 were slaves and 83,942 were free. The majority of the free blacks lived in the central and western portions of the state. She also pointed out that a political problem centered around the increase of the "hated free Negro population." Jean Baker stated that the best known organization dealing with the problem of freed slaves was the Colonization Society of Maryland. This society was founded in 1831, for the express purpose of encouraging the return of free Negroes to Africa. The Maryland state government participated in the funding and promotion of the project. A colony known as the state of Maryland in the nation of Liberia in West Africa was established for this purpose.
 
Copyright ©   Reverdy  Lewin  Orrell,  III"


I hope this post will be somewhat helpful.

Quote
In my perspective, that is like saying that the Nazis were more honorable than the Allies. I know that may sound a little extreme but that is how I feel.


I would suggest that you take Thomas's advice and not believe the revisionist history. If you believe that the south can even remotley be compared to the nazis, then you have drunk the yankee cool-aid. Just have an open mind and do some research, it's not that hard.


God bless Dixieland!!!!!!!!

Bagpiper
Logged

Troparion - Tone 1:
O Sebastian, spurning the assemblies of the wicked,You gathered the wise martyrs Who with you cast down the enemy; And standing worthily before the throne of God, You gladden those who cry to you:Glory to him who has strengthened you! Glory to him who has granted you a crown!
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #32 on: June 13, 2005, 12:43:12 AM »

What is it about the cause of the Confederacy that would make them honorable? I honestly would like to learn.
« Last Edit: June 13, 2005, 12:48:59 AM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Nacho
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #33 on: June 13, 2005, 02:28:06 AM »

Quote
What is it about the cause of the Confederacy that would make them honorable? I honestly would like to learn.

Just looked at all the juicy post on this thread about the war of northern aggression. I would add the South was simply following the Constitution when it came to their right to secede. I think the root of the problem came directly from the constitutional convention where there was left so many unanswered questions about the role of the *loosely* connected states which formed a mild federalism at that time. The majority consensus at the time were that the state's powers trumped that of the federal, but as time progressed there was a widening gap between the south and north on the role of the federal government. All the cheerleaders for the north who have really sugar coated history books today with mis-information would have you believe that there was no argument ever when it came to the role of the federal government until around the time of the civil war but nothing could be further from the truth. Rights that were reserved to the states and rights that belonged to the federal government is a debate that is as old as this nation. The very first DAY it was conceived there was discussion of "how much power do the states get and how much does the central government get." The idea that it never came up as a debate until slavery is laughable. People didn't look at the US in the same way then, people were much MORE likely to view themselves as a Pennsylvanian or an Alabamian than as an "American." That's changed now, probably it's just as well. But you can't judge the actions of 150 years ago without understanding something that is hard to understand in today's political correctness climate that says, " South BAD, they're for slaves, North Good, they wanted to free the slaves!" Nothing could be further from the truth seeing that slavery never came up as in issue until towards the end of the war. If you also think that's what caused the Union to invade the south, please read the statements of Grant or Lincoln who were extremely racist people. Grant even said that if he was told that this war was also to help free the slaves that he would have turned around and ordered all his troops to march back north. Hmmm, that's some humanitarian if I've ever seen one... Roll Eyes. Another lovely plan that Lincoln had was to ship all the free slaves back to Africa or put them all in Florida. If he would have not been assinated he probably would have gone through with his plans also and this is a man put up on some pedestal as some kind of hero.

Another counterpoint is the fact that something like 90% of the men fighting for the south did not own slaves and had nothing to do with slavery. It was the more elite wealthy people who owned the slaves. I have to laugh when people repeat the BIG LIE over and over that it was all about the issue of slavery. You mean to tell me that all these average southern men risked their lives and left their families to go fight for the right of the richest person in town to keep their slaves? That would be like me leaving my job and family to go fight on behalf of Bill Gates or some other rich person in some other state for some cause that had nothing to do with me. I don't think I would risk death for some millionare that has nothing to do with me. Sounds pretty absurd to me, but the left will continue to tell these lies to gullible sheeple. It's a shame so many don't know the truth about the civil war. The villians in this conflict in my opinion definitely was the north.
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Nacho
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #34 on: June 13, 2005, 02:58:01 AM »

Here's the Missouri Confederate battleflag under which some of my ancestors fought under in Missouri who had some of the most effective brigades in the whole war. Here's a qoute from Historian Phillip Tucker who states, "...the Missouri Brigade established a combat record more distinguished than that of the most legendary fighting brigades on either side during the Civil War, including the Union's Iron and Irish brigades and the Confederacy's Stonewall, Orphan, and Texas Brigades.

« Last Edit: June 13, 2005, 03:01:20 AM by Nacho » Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Nacho
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: EasternOrthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,482

The face of Corporate America


« Reply #35 on: June 13, 2005, 03:04:38 AM »

Now put that in your pipe and smoke it!   Grin
Logged

"If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."--Mere Christianity
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #36 on: June 13, 2005, 05:30:07 AM »

Could it be that those who did not have slaves but fought the Union anyway did so out of sheer defiance?
Furthermore, should the issue of slavery have been left as a matter of states' rights?
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
cizinec
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Posts: 941


There ain't no way but the hard way.


« Reply #37 on: June 14, 2005, 08:55:36 AM »

Matthew,

They fought the U.S. because of their loyalty to their states and because they were afraid of or were idealogically opposed to a strong central government. 

There was also a sense that people from the North were trying to tell them how the culture of the South *ought* to be.  The Southerners did have a great deal to complain about the North, including treatment of immigrant labor that was no better than the worst treatment of the slaves.  The difference is, of course, that the immigrants had a CHANCE to become something more than they were while the slaves, no matter how well treated by their masters, had very few opportunities and were even at risk if freed by their master.

To an extent, it's the way many of us feel about Northeastern and Western liberal states.  Say I'm a working guy in Oregon going out to work in the forest where I barely eek out a living.  The next thing I know there are a bunch of mercedes with California plates keeping me from going to work because they don't like me cutting down trees.  Then I hear that a guy from my church or someone I grew up with was injured and can't work anymore because someone put metal spikes in trees for no other reason than to terrorize us. 

That's not fiction.  It happened to my grandfather and cousins in Oregon.  I think the youngest logger in my family is now in his 40s, thank God, but he still has a right to work a legal job.  I think this was the same sentiment held by those in the South.  They had a right to make their own decisions without a bunch of do-gooder Yankees who think they know what's best for everybody forcing themselves into issues they don't understand.

Personally, I think the South was full of crap.  Their refusal to address the evils of slavery eventually cost them the moral high ground and, in my opinion, the war.  I have a 2great grandfather who was in Andersonville, and I'm not sure where the morality was going in that place.  While I may be sympathetic to many of the issues the South claims to have been fighting for, they certainly weren't delivering on the promise.  They met their well-earned place as HISTORY.
Logged

"Brother, your best friend ain't your Momma, it's the Field Artillery."
Bono Vox
The Orthodox Bagpiper
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #38 on: June 14, 2005, 08:56:31 PM »

Quote
Personally, I think the South was full of crap.  Their refusal to address the evils of slavery eventually cost them the moral high ground and, in my opinion, the war.

I would have to respectfully disagree with you. Most southerners, including Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee believed in gradual emancipation, and that it was inevitable. As I stated earlier, I believe that racisim (KKK, Lynchings and so forth) were the result of the north winning the war and the misery they put the south through during the "reconstruction" period.

The atrosities of the northern aggressors (ie..raping innocent women, killing innocent people, including kids, destroying innocent peoples homes and property ect....) voided the yankees of any moral highground what so ever.

Quote
Could it be that those who did not have slaves but fought the Union anyway did so out of sheer defiance?


If the union forces, such as the kansas jayhawkers, came in and burned down your home, raped your sister, killed your mother and father, destroyed your crops and looted all of your livestock and possessions, wouldn't you be a little defiant???

Quote
Here's the Missouri Confederate battleflag under which some of my ancestors fought under in Missouri who had some of the most effective brigades in the whole wa

I love that flag. I take a particular interest in it because Missouri is my home state and my anscestors fought here. I would suggest everyone here study the conflict missouri had with kansas during the civil war, it's very interesting.

In fact, William clark Quantrill and Frank James fought in the battle of Wilsons Creek here in Springfield where I live.

Quote
What is it about the cause of the Confederacy that would make them honorable? I honestly would like to learn.

If you honestly would like to learn, then I would like to suggest that you read some books from a southern perspective. "The south was right" by James Ronald Kennedy,Walter Donald Kennedy.
This is a good primer. The letters and journal of Robert E. Lee are also good for beginners.

God bless Dixieland!!!!!!!

Bagpiper
Logged

Troparion - Tone 1:
O Sebastian, spurning the assemblies of the wicked,You gathered the wise martyrs Who with you cast down the enemy; And standing worthily before the throne of God, You gladden those who cry to you:Glory to him who has strengthened you! Glory to him who has granted you a crown!
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #39 on: June 14, 2005, 09:07:27 PM »

"The south was right"

How could that even be possible? I could be mistaken but in my mind, that is still like saying that Hitler was right.
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Nigula Qian Zishi
Administrator Emeritus, Retired Deacon, Inactive Poster, Active Orthodox Christian, Father, and Husband
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
Posts: 1,836


我美丽的妻子和我。

nstanosheck
WWW
« Reply #40 on: June 14, 2005, 09:19:43 PM »

You are mistaken. The South was right. The war was not over slavery, but over Constitutional state's rights.

Someone call Joe Zollars! :-D
« Last Edit: June 14, 2005, 09:31:32 PM by ΝικολάÎÆ» Logged

在基督         My Original Blog
尼古拉         My Facebook Profile
前执事         My Twitter Page
TomS
Banned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 3,186


"Look At Me! Look At Me Now! " - Bono


« Reply #41 on: June 14, 2005, 09:20:29 PM »

[quote author=Νικολάος Διάκονος link=topic=6322.msg83120#msg83120 date=1118798383]
Someone call Joe Zollars! :-D
[/quote]

Yeeeeeeeeeeeee Haaaaawwwwww!!!
Logged
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #42 on: June 14, 2005, 09:30:00 PM »

Is slavery a states' right? 

 "The name Civil War is misleading because the war was not a class struggle, but a sectional combat having its roots in political, economic, social, and psychological elements so complex that historians still do not agree on its basic causes. It has been characterized, in the words of William H. Seward, as the “irrepressible conflict.” In another judgment the Civil War was viewed as criminally stupid, an unnecessary bloodletting brought on by arrogant extremists and blundering politicians. Both views accept the fact that in 1861 there existed a situation that, rightly or wrongly, had come to be regarded as insoluble by peaceful means.

    In the days of the American Revolution and of the adoption of the Constitution, differences between North and South were dwarfed by their common interest in establishing a new nation. But sectionalism steadily grew stronger. During the 19th cent. the South remained almost completely agricultural, with an economy and a social order largely founded on slavery and the plantation system. These mutually dependent institutions produced the staples, especially cotton, from which the South derived its wealth. The North had its own great agricultural resources, was always more advanced commercially, and was also expanding industrially.

    Hostility between the two sections grew perceptibly after 1820, the year of the Missouri Compromise , which was intended as a permanent solution to the issue in which that hostility was most clearly expressed—the question of the extension or prohibition of slavery in the federal territories of the West. Difficulties over the tariff (which led John C. Calhoun and South Carolina to nullification and to an extreme states' rights stand) and troubles over internal improvements were also involved, but the territorial issue nearly always loomed largest. In the North moral indignation increased with the rise of the abolitionists in the 1830s. Since slavery was unadaptable to much of the territorial lands, which eventually would be admitted as free states, the South became more anxious about maintaining its position as an equal in the Union. Southerners thus strongly supported the annexation of Texas (certain to be a slave state) and the Mexican War and even agitated for the annexation of Cuba.

    The Compromise of 1850 marked the end of the period that might be called the era of compromise. The deaths in 1852 of Henry Clay and Daniel Webster left no leader of national stature, but only sectional spokesmen, such as W. H. Seward , Charles Sumner , and Salmon P. Chase in the North and Jefferson Davis and Robert Toombs in the South. With the Kansas-Nebraska Act (1854) and the consequent struggle over “bleeding” Kansas the factions first resorted to shooting. The South was ever alert to protect its “peculiar institution,” even though many Southerners recognized slavery as an anachronism in a supposedly enlightened age. Passions aroused by arguments over the fugitive slave laws (which culminated in the Dred Scott Case ) and over slavery in general were further excited by the activities of the Northern abolitionist John Brown and by the vigorous proslavery utterances of William L. Yancey , one of the leading Southern fire-eaters."
http://encyclopedia.com/html/section/CivilWarUS_Causes.asp
 
Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Fr. David
The Poster Formerly Known as "Pedro"
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA, Diocese of the South
Posts: 2,828



WWW
« Reply #43 on: June 14, 2005, 11:11:30 PM »

Is slavery a states' right? 

Hate to say it, but yeah.  Yeah it was.  The way the country was set up, each state could decide for themselves whether or not to hold slaves, as well as (and this was the more pressing issue) whether or not to even stay in the union or "go it alone" as their own entity (or, in the South's case, form a new union that favored states' rights over federal decree).

I understand that this is an emotional issue for lots of people.  Consequently, the South gets painted as being obsessed with slavery, the war gets painted as only being about slavery, and any means necessary become justified in order to get rid of slavery...even trashing the consitutional right of states to leave the union and do what they have sovreignly elected to do.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2005, 11:12:19 PM by Pedro » Logged

Priest in the Orthodox Church in America - ordained on March 18, 2012

Oh Taste and See (my defunct blog)

From Protestant to Orthodox (my conversion story)
Matthew777
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,497

Seek and ye shall find


WWW
« Reply #44 on: June 14, 2005, 11:15:10 PM »

A state does not have the Constitutional right to break from the Union in order to enslave human beings and sell them as product. This is why the South lost but militarily and morally.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2005, 11:16:00 PM by Matthew777 » Logged

He who has a why to live for can bear with almost any how. - Friedrich Nietzsche
www.aramaicpeshitta.com
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/e/et/et0.htm
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.2 seconds with 72 queries.